On 14 Sep 2011, at 06:13, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?
You are the one assuming some physical reality. But mechanism can
explains where such physical rules come from. They are consequences
of addition and multiplication. More exactly, their appearances for
the average universal machine are consequences of 0, +, and *.
Dear Bruno,
Could you give us a sketch of exactly how 'physical rules' or
the appearance thereof are the "consequences of 0, + and *"? I think
that there is more to the explanation than the fact that 0, + and *
exist.... This is the part of your work that I still do not
understand.
Well, it is the second part. the one I call AUDA.
In a sketch.
1) define provable-by-machine-PA in the arithmetical language {0, s,
+, *, "E", "A", etc.}. Like in Gödel 1931. This gives Bp (for
beweisbar <some arithmetical proposition>. This will play the role of
the "scientific rational opinion of the machine".
2) Solovay: the truth about the logic of Bp is given by G*. The
provable part of it is given by G.
3) define the knowledge of the machine by Bp & p. (Theatetus) The
logic of Bp & p is given by S4Grz (a logic of a form of intuitionist
evolving antisymmetrical knowledge.
4) define observable by Bp & Dt (logic Z and Z*-
5) define feel-able by Bp & Dt & p (logic X and X*)
Note that the splitting proof/truth (G/G*) extends to Bp & Dt, and to
Bp & Dt & p; that is the observable and the feel-able.
Then (eneter the arithmetical UD): restrict the arithmetical
realization of the sentence letters p to the sigma_1 sentence. You get
the logic Z1* (quanta and qualia). the quanta appears in the non
communicable part, and are particular case of qualia, and this assure
our coherence: we share histories (this is what Everett confirms the
most: we are collectively multiplied by huge factor, and symmetry and
linearity appears at the arithmetical quantum bottom.
If comp is correct, and if the Theatetus's idea is correct, Z1* gives
the probability one, and you can deduce the other probabilities from
there (von Neumann old criteria for a genuine quantum logic).
I hope I was not too sketchy. Use this to dig on the second part (the
interview of the LUM, it is AUDA) of the sane04 paper.
Bruno
Onward!
Stephen
How are they
enforced? Why would there be a difference between simple and complex
to begin with and what makes one lead to the other but not the other
way around?
They are all statically, but logically related.
Also, why do you make that argument, given that you seem to take
for granted electromagnetism, that is Maxwell laws?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
